Michael Paler
Legend
Silver Level
^ this. Hell, 81 players is more than the combined fields that entered the '76 and '77 Main Events when Doyle won his first two bracelets (they had 22 and 34 entrants, respectively).
81 people is more than Stu Ungar beat in either his first two Main Event wins.
Plus all nine of Ivey's bracelets have come in events with buyins of $5K or less - indeed, all but two of them have been in events with a buyin of $2.5K or less. Beating relatively small fields in mixed or minor games is kind of his thing as far as bracelets go.
Ivey's not alone in that BTW - one of Doyle's bracelets is from a $600 (no I didn't miss a zero there - it's six hundred dollars) buyin "mixed doubles" event. So I could be wrong, but does that mean Texas Dolly only had to put up $300 to enter? Dunno what the field size was in that but it can't have been huge, because first place only paid $4,500.
I agree it'd be more impressive if they beat big fields in high buyin events but at the end of the day, I think we've just got to acknowledge that a bracelet is a bracelet.
In other news LOL this is happening in my home casino and I'd completely forgotten about it
Keep in mind that the $600.00 Doyle dolled out in 76-77 is like about 2k in 2004, and about 6.2 billion in 2014.
Just a rough approximation, no Obama joke intended (wink,wink)
Enzo1089
Rock Star
Silver Level
If so and assuming the "poker world" exists in 100 years...Phil Ivey will most certainly be considered one of the great ones.
Not sure if you're serious on this one.
online poker will very likely survive....except maybe for the United States side, because government restrictions are stupid here. With online poker there really is no way to know whether or not you are playing against a human or a machine. They may have a screen name, but that doesn't really mean anything as these can be easily randomly generated, so on that point you are correct. (Take it from me, I'm a very proficient programmer
) With that said, let's assume online poker DOES die over here. Poker is too big of a name to just die out, there will always be people willing to play the game if money is involved. Again, assuming online poker dies out on the US front, the only place to play the game will be live, and if there is money involved people will show up to play the game...Anywho...got a little sidetracked there. Congratulations to Phil Ivey on his 9th wsop bracelet!
A
AcesUp747
Rock Star
Silver Level
Really hope he adds even more to the total so Hellmouth won't be able to say he has the most.
I mean, most knowledgeable players would rate Ivey above Hellmuth anyway, but at least then he won;t have anything to hang his hat on.
I mean, most knowledgeable players would rate Ivey above Hellmuth anyway, but at least then he won;t have anything to hang his hat on.
wagon596
Legend
Bronze Level
Phil Ivey is probably the best all around player today ,,, as much as I hate to say it, the other Phil has to be the best NL Hold'em player around today.
I have no opinion on Stu as I don't know much about him. But from the comments I've heard on TV from very respected people in the game, he could very well be the greatest of all time.
Take care
I have no opinion on Stu as I don't know much about him. But from the comments I've heard on TV from very respected people in the game, he could very well be the greatest of all time.
Take care
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Who... Phil Galfond? I guess that's possible, though I thought PLO was meant to be his best game
Michael Paler
Legend
Silver Level
My question is this; is Phil Hellmuth getting nervous? I am sure he must be concerned that he will eventually be knocked off the top of the mountain. Any of the others in the top 3-4 could do it.
13 Phil Hellmuth 1989, 1992, 1993 (3), 1997, 2001, 2003 (2), 2006, 2007, 2012, 2012 [E]
10 Doyle Brunson 1976 (2), 1977 (2), 1978, 1979, 1991, 1998, 2003, 2005
10 Johnny Chan 1985, 1987, 1988, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003 (2), 2005
9 Phil Ivey 2000, 2002 (3), 2005, 2009 (2), 2010, 2013 [A]
8 Erik Seidel 1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007
The reason I ask is because of Hellmuth's performance in the current WSOP main event; he essentially bluffed all his chips off over a few hands and went out drawing dead - that is not exactly how he normally plays. I was really surprised. So much for the old "white magic", lol. Could he be a little too anxious to make another or make another main event bracelet?
And as an aside, why is it every time someone wins one, outside a main event, they start pointing out the total field numbers or low buy-in event specs of the game they won it in? This really says that maybe they somehow think it was "too easy" or worth noting because ____(please tell us why that is worth noting). I mean, not only is a bracelet a bracelet, until those who point this out every time, you know, WIN ONE themselves...well! Stop bringing it up. Who cares? The lowest number of participants and the lowest buyin does not make it any less of a major career accomplishment. "Context" be damned.
So congrats to Ivey!
13 Phil Hellmuth 1989, 1992, 1993 (3), 1997, 2001, 2003 (2), 2006, 2007, 2012, 2012 [E]
10 Doyle Brunson 1976 (2), 1977 (2), 1978, 1979, 1991, 1998, 2003, 2005
10 Johnny Chan 1985, 1987, 1988, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003 (2), 2005
9 Phil Ivey 2000, 2002 (3), 2005, 2009 (2), 2010, 2013 [A]
8 Erik Seidel 1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007
The reason I ask is because of Hellmuth's performance in the current WSOP main event; he essentially bluffed all his chips off over a few hands and went out drawing dead - that is not exactly how he normally plays. I was really surprised. So much for the old "white magic", lol. Could he be a little too anxious to make another or make another main event bracelet?
And as an aside, why is it every time someone wins one, outside a main event, they start pointing out the total field numbers or low buy-in event specs of the game they won it in? This really says that maybe they somehow think it was "too easy" or worth noting because ____(please tell us why that is worth noting). I mean, not only is a bracelet a bracelet, until those who point this out every time, you know, WIN ONE themselves...well! Stop bringing it up. Who cares? The lowest number of participants and the lowest buyin does not make it any less of a major career accomplishment. "Context" be damned.
So congrats to Ivey!
H
heAdstroMan
Rock Star
Silver Level
has that not already happened, helmuth has been terrible for years!
E
ezevan1022
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Hellmuth is far from terrible, is he the best? That is a simple answer, but when millions of people play, you don't have to be the best. We can condemn him all we want, but he is a better tournament player then any of us, and history easily shows us that much.
CATLICKER
Enthusiast
Silver Level
All true, its just a shame he has more class than just a few of us.
redcross
Rock Star
Silver Level
Come on Ivey run down hellmuth! Can't stand that guy! How he whines and crus whenever he gets beat. He acts like everything he does is genius and whatever anyone else does is the most ridiculous thing in the world. Ivey is always staying cool and in effected by the events going on around him. So come on Ivey take him down!